Eavesdropping neighbors

So, it seems that our Swedish neighbors are eavesdropping on us. Listening on our phone calls and reading our emails. With the so called FRA act or FRA law, the Swedish government is at least given the opportunity to do so. Effective from January 1 2009, the act authorizes the state to wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders without any individual warrant to do so.

Not surprisingly, this act is part of anti-terrorism legislation, seeking to protect Swedish citizens by stopping terrorist activity and plotting leading up to a strike. But the legislation has - also not surprisingly - run into a wall of criticism, with some commentators predicting the fall of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. Basically all major newspapers in Sweden have spoken out against the legislation. Even though the wiretapping is only intended for communication running across the border, some critics say it is in practice impossible to differentiate between international calls and calls between Swedish citizens. Also, the international criticism is stark: the Finnish government has sent an official protest to the Swedes.

Here in Norway, many are speaking up against the law, but the Government has not as of yet sent any official protest. Mainly Venstre (the Left Party) is speaking up, saying the Government is too passive and demanding some action and protest against the act. The act is negating Norwegians' and other non-Swedes' rights with regards to surveillance. Also, Norwegian business is being affected by the law and the surveillance of their activity. Recently, the Norwegian branch of the International Commission of Legal Professionals has filed a suit against the Swedish State at the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. This has been widely supported in Norway.

This issue digs right into that post 9-11 debate of wether we should allow some infringement on our rights for the State to be better able to protect us against terrorists. As many, among them mr Barack Obama, have pointed out, this is a false choice. In the fight against terrorism, these are the rights and values we should be protecting, not limiting. By broadening the State's surveillance of citizens, we are heading the wrong way: towards an East German Stasi system where anyone the least bit suspect in the State's eyes (i.e. everyone) was secretly wiretapped with thick and growing folders filling up Government file-cabinets, just in case they might be up to something..

Harr harr! - modern day pirates

Since I was a kid, I've been fascinated with pirates. I used to love reading about them. One of my favorite stories was about the famous pirate Edward Teach. Teach, better known as Blackbeard, fired up pieces of hemp in his beard to seem more fearful and demon-like to his enemies. Buccaneers, Swashbucklers and Privateers, hmmm, those must have been the days.. Since I've started blogging, I haven't really seen any natural opportunity to write anything about pirates. But now, with all the buzz in the media about pirates, I'm not going to relinquish on the chance to finally comment on piracy!

The last year or couple of years, the coast off Somalia and around the bay of Aden has become a real hot-bed for piracy, and a real hazard for ships passing through. The last year, pirate assaults off the east coast of Africa has increased by 75%. Just this week, on Thursday, a band of Somali pirates demanded a ransom of 25 million US dollars for the Aramco-owned oil tanker Sirius Star. And on Tuesday this week, a Greek cargo ship with a crew of 20-odd was also caught by Somali pirates.

The piracy in this area is a scourge for the shipping industry, and has forced several shipping companies to send tankers and cargo ships travelling between Asia and Europe around the Cape Good Hope instead of through the Suez Canal as they will have to pass through the bay of Aden the get there. One of those is the Norwegian company Odfjell, which weekly has got 2-3 ships passing through this area. For Odfjell this is a decision based on the crews safety, and will imply a large jump in costs due to the increased distance to be travelled.

The Norwegian Union of Ship-Owners (norsk rederiforbund) is frustrated that not enough is being done to rid this and other areas of piracy. The Union wants the Norwegian government to deploy military forces in the area to combat pirates. That might well be done, as the navy recently has been training on pirate-combating tactics. But even if Norway contributed to an international force, this would have to be huge, as the area in question is enormous - 6.6 million square kilometers. And also, of course the growth of piracy has its roots in the conditions in conflict-ridden Somalia itself. Without bettering the conditions in the country, solving the piracy-problem might be near impossible.

Worries in the High North

In this week's issue, the Economist is featuring an article that highlights Russia's conduct in the Arctic areas. It describes this area, "cold, empty and rich in fish and minerals", as "a tempting prize for a big, confident country." Russian fighter jets have been frequently flying very close to Norwegian territory, something that while not illegal sends some worrying signals. The recent €4 billion emergency loan to Iceland is also a bit worrying - not in itself, but with regards to whatever Russia wants in return.

I have written some posts about this issue already; "The Bear and Us - Russia and Norway" and "The Bear and Us Revisited". My point in those articles was that although the Cold War is over, we should be very wary with regards to our Eastern neighbor.

As a tiny little country of only four and a half million people we are not in an ideal position if we should get into a conflict with Russia. But we still need to do everything in our power to stand our ground, and send clear signals of our own standpoint. Also, as I see it, we have no other choice than to keep both of our feet firmly grounded in NATO. It may be pointed out that "NATO presence is fitful" in the High North, as the Economist does. Still, it is a grave mistake to argue for us to distance ourselves from NATO and our Western allies, as some of our socialist parties do. We cannot afford to stand alone, and NATO is our best bet not to do so.

It has been sad to see that even our dear former Prime Minister, Haakon Lie, has been arguing against taking our share of responsibilities in NATO operations around the world. His rhetorical point is that Norway's borders are not running next to Afghanistan. That is of course true. But it is equally true that most NATO members do not have a border to Russia along the Pasvik River in Northern Norway.

The Bear and Us - Russia and Norway

This week, the Norwegian foreign minister, mr Jonas Gahr Støre, held a speech on Russo-Norwegian relations at the Norwegian Insitute for Foreign Policy (NUPI). The main points in his speech was that the relationship between Norway and Russia has never been as good as now, but that it could and should get even better. Russia is on the right track, but the authoritarian tendencies are worrying. We do have a close dialogue with Russia, but we need to stay critical in our talks with our neighbor. But even though our relationship with Russia is improving, we are firmly rooted in the West and this will not change.

Mr Støre has proved himself as a great ambassador for Norway in capacity as foreign minister, and he deserves all the praise he gets for his job. He shows nuanced and well informed views, and he is not afraid of standing up for the Norwegian interests.

As he says, we need to have a good relationship with our eastern Neighbor, and we certainly do, at least on the "popular" level. This is especially true for the areas of Norway closest to the Russian border, such as Kirkenes, where even street signs are written both in Norwegian and Russian. But it also hold true for other parts. We do have a large Russian immigrant population, which is very well integrated. In some areas in Finnmark (northern Norway), Women with Russian background (mostly first-generation immigrants), make up almost 6% of the total female population in working age (Sør-Varanger 5.7% and Båtsfjord 5.8% in 2007). The male immigrant population is somewhat lower; on average it is 51% of the female one.

On the state-level (foreign policy), the relationship is good as well. We do have a good dialogue, and commercial and cultural exchange. But we do need to show some caution. The Russian state certainly is thumping its chest and showing some muscles, trying to build its reputation and self-esteem after the fall of the Soviet state. In is speech, Støre said that he has understanding for this. To a certain extent, I agree, but we should not accept the more worrying examples of this, such as the treatment Russia gave Ukraine and Georgia in 2007-2008, when it stopped exports of gas in the middle of the winter.

In the arctic area, we do have huge areas of sea where the border lines are not clearly drawn. With the recent findings of large oil and particularly gas fields here, this is an area of potential conflict with Russia. Little Norway do not want to get into a muscle-flexing contest with the Russian Bear here. So, as Støre pointed out, we need both to improve the already good relationship we have with Russia, as well as keep ourselves rooted in the West. A good relationship will minimize the risk of getting into some sort of conflict here, and being firmly rooted in the West (including NATO) will provide a deterrent as well as help if, in the future, we should need it - God forbid.

***

By the way, this is my 50th blog post, so I will allow myself a little congratulation. I started this blog last August, while I was living in Prague. Since then, I have more or less regularly been posting on various Norway-related subjects. I have certainly enjoyed it, and I will keep it going as long as I still do, which hopefully will be a long time. So, thanks for all the comments so far, and hopefully you will pop by as regularly as I post.

Some random thoughts on the Afghanistan war

Flash from the news #1; US Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama recently told the German weekly "der Spiegel" that the Europeans have to provide more support in the form of troops in the war in Afghanistan.

Flash from the news #2; The former Norwegian Foreign Minister Torbjørn Jagland expressed his views that NATO needs more troops in Afghanistan, and that Norway should shoulder more of its responsibility and provide more troops than what is currently the case.

There is no doubt that the support for the US-led invasion in Afghanistan among the poulation of the Western World is waning. A few weeks ago the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, addressed this in a speech. The European political leaders have not succeeded in explaining the reasons for the invasion in Afghanistan and the reasons why the war is still going on. And also, he said, the war in Afghanistan is commonly mixed up with the war in Iraq.

The invasion in Iraq was, it could be reasonably argued (and I agree with that), based on false evidence, and it was also a case of the Bush administration taking advantage of a broad support for their War on Terror. Still, the war in Afghanistan is not the war in Iraq. When the US and the UK invaded Afghanistan in 2001, there was huge international support for the invasion. With the close links between Taliban, which were in control of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda which were also hiding out in Afghanistan, this invasion was legitimate, and the West was right in supporting the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. To oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was legitimate and backed by virtually the entire Western World. And even though the US messed up with also invading Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is still a legitimate war.

So, to bail out from this now is simply wrong. We agreed to this invasion in the first place, and we have an obligation to stand by until the situation is stabilized, or we are "victorious". The public support for the Afghanistan war might be waning, but politics are not done with plebiscistes for every single decision, and politicians are not supposed to go solely after the public opinion. It might be that our politicians did not educate us enough, but it is anyways their responsibility to stand by and not withdraw the support we gave at the outset. We went in there, and we need to stay in there until have achieved our objectives, which among others were to oust the Taliban regime from power and make sure they stay out of power. To pull out of Afghanistan now will be to leave the country in a state of disarray, where the Taliban can easily come back.

According to common sense, it is necessary to have enough troops to win any conflict. And according to the Powell doctrine, when you enter a conflict, you better make sure you go in with overwhelming force, so that you are certain you will be victorious. If you go in without the necessary level of force, you will be bound to enter a quagmire, much like the US did in Vietnam.

When US President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to go into Vietnam, he did not go in with the necessary firepower to win the conflict in a reasonably short amount of time. And when he and his administration witnessed the conflict prolong, they sent in more troops only little by little, but still not enough to win. Mired in a conflict that could not be resolved within a short time, and without the necessary force to do that, the administration lost their support among the US population.

Similarly, without the necessary international support (both diplomatically and militarily), the US and NATO will have a very hard time winning the war in Afghanistan. And as Torbjørn Jagland said in the beforementioned interview, if NATO does not win this war, its relevance in following scenarios will be diminished. So in addition to a stable Afghanistan, the future of NATO could also be at stake in this conflict. For a country as dependant on NATO for its security as Norway, the choice should be clear.